OOTP Chapter Eleven: "The Sorting Hat's New Song"

[for-diddled.livejournal.com]

* “Harry didn’t want to tell the others that he and Luna were having the same hallucination” – erm, Harry, two people don’t independently have the same hallucinations. If two of you can see it, it’s a safe bet that there’s something there.

* Also, note the arbitrary scepticism here. Harry knows that there exist sounds which can be heard by some people and not by others (the basilisk’s voice); why, then, is the idea of an object which only some people can see so ridiculous?

* Nice to see Luna sticking up for herself like that. Unlike Hermione, who seems to be intimidated into silence.

* Of course, the Trio will tacitly accept Luna’s assessment of Hagrid’s competence when they decide not to carry on with COMC next year.

* Luna’s role is quite interesting, IMHO. She seems here to be set up as the teller of uncomfortable truths, and it’s a shame JKR didn’t make more of this function. Maybe Harry could have accepted things he didn’t like hearing from someone he had no reason to be antagonistic towards (i.e., Luna), as a stepping-stone to listening to uncomfortable truths told even by people he didn’t like, such as Draco.

* I like how the Mirror of Erised scene has become an example of Harry seeing “something that Ron could not”, as if the Mirror really had Harry’s parents in it, and anyone else just isn’t seeing it properly. It might be more accurate to say that he and Ron had both seen different but equally valid things.

* Actually wait, scratch that – the idea of Harry seeing someone else’s viewpoint as “equally valid” just isn’t going to happen, is it?

* Ginny is “hailed by some fellow fourth-years” the moment they reach the Gryffindor table. See how popular she is! She’s totally worthy to be the Chosen One’s woman!

* Note how the Sorting Hat pairs Slytherin and Gryffindor as two really good friends. Either Salazar wasn’t as evil as everyone now believes, or Godric wasn’t such an opponent of Dark Magic as the Gryffindors would like to think.

* Slytherin supported teaching “those / Whose ancestry is purest”, even though the House’s other main value of “ambition” would make it a natural home for those on the fringes of wizarding society – such as muggle-borns – who want to make something of themselves, and most hereditary aristocracies (as the pureblood families seem to be in the WW) would feel more at home in brave and loyal Gryffindor than cunning and ambitious Slytherin. So either the Hat is mistaken to suggest that Slytherin was much of a pureblood supremacist (perhaps it’s getting a bit senile after a thousand years); or ambition only became associated with Slytherin House at a later date; or Slytherin wasn’t initially a pureblood fanatic, but became so at a later date (perhaps one of the muggle-borns tried to betray the school?); or wizarding aristocracy is more like that of ancient Rome, with every individual competing to be better than his peers.

* Actually, that last suggestion might be quite close to the truth: Hermione mentions that wizards don’t have any princes, and there never seem to have been any wizard kings (or if there were, they were too remote in time to be mentioned), so the idea of a group of competing noblemen trying for the top job is quite plausible.

* Although the WW does seem to be fairly corporatist, so perhaps it’s not so much individuals competing for glory as families manoeuvring to increase their influence, a bit like in Renaissance Italy.

* Getting back to the actual book, it’s interesting to see how Hufflepuff’s described as taking “the rest”, which is about as close as we get to a canonical admission that Hufflepuff’s just a rag-bag House for people who wouldn’t fit into the other Houses.

* The school apparently worked well for “several happy years”, which would seem odd if Slytherin and Gryffindor had been at loggerheads over such a basic principle as whom to admit. Perhaps as mentioned above Slytherin was initially OK with the idea of letting in Muggleborns, but later changed his mind (for whatever reason), leading to all the conflict?

* The Hat outright says that the Houses are supposed to be united, which doesn’t seem to chime with the portrayal of Slytherin in later books. Is JKR just extraordinarily un-self-reflective, putting in all that stuff about Houses uniting because it sounded like a good principle, but not realising that her actual portrayal of the Houses undercut this theme? Or did she intend to address it, but suffered burnout between Books 5 and 6, and ended the series as quickly as possible without bothering about thematic closure?

* So, is the Hat’s advice for the student body in general, or is it also directed more specifically at Dumbles? Certainly, I can’t imagine his rigging the House Cup to make Gryffindor win every year for the last four years would endear him to many students from other Houses, especially not Slytherin, given their traditional rivalry.

* Ron’s not being very restrained with his eating, is he? Remember, though, it’s only bad people like Dudley, Crabbe and Goyle who actually get fat. Ron, being a good guy, can eat as much as he likes and remain lean and lanky.

* Harry’s refusing to even consider being more friendly with the Slytherins. Truly that boy is a fount of love and compassion!

* Ron’s being such an insensitive jerk that NHN leaves and sits by somebody else. He’ll display this sort of behaviour again in HBP, when he alienates Moaning Myrtle, who’s just about to tell Harry that Draco’s the one behind the murder attempts.

* Looking back on this book, I remembered Ron and Hermione’s arguments as basically being good-natured banter, but they really do seem to be getting on each other’s nerves here. JKR must have some pretty odd ideas about love if she thinks that these two are right for each other. (Although actually, looking at her relationship with her first husband…)

* Professor Umbridge’s speech all sounds like fairly run-of-the-mill and uncontroversial stuff to me. I’m not entirely sure how Hermione got from it to “The Ministry is interfering at Hogwarts”.

* Also, trust AuthorAvatar!Hermione to guess what’s wrong with Umbridge from the beginning. In reality, I think Hermione would agree with much of what Umbridge is doing (hey, maybe Hogwarts would benefit from not leaving staff hiring entirely in the hands of the Twinkly One…), and the two seem to have quite similar personalities, so she’d probably connect on a personal level.

* Ron really isn’t a very good prefect, is he? “Hey, you lot, midgets”?

* You’d have thought that after four years the Fat Lady would be able to recognise Gryffindor students and let them in. Apparently, though, such thinking is too original for the WW.

* Seamus sounds sort of embarrassed about his mother’s behaviour, IMHO, at least at the start of his conversation. It’s not until Harry starts insulting his family that he begins to get all defensive and start disbelieving Harry.

* Also, memo to Harry: if you’re trying to convince people that you’re telling the truth, it’s probably not a good idea to insult their relatives when they ask you what’s going on.

* “‘I’ll have a go at anyone who calls me a liar,’ said Harry.” Given that Seamus’ mum – and, indeed, most of the WW – probably only heard the official Ministry line, isn’t it only to be expected that they’d be a bit sceptical about Harry’s claims? When you only give people one side of the story, it’s no wonder they end up supporting that side (which, come to think of it, might explain a lot about why many fans seem to follow the Harry-Dumbledore party line…).

* Now Harry’s shouting abuse at Seamus and brandishing his wand. How on earth could anybody believe the Ministry propaganda about him being mad? Clearly he is a model of sanity and emotional stability.

* Note how Ron’s first reaction is to side with Harry. I’m sure he’ll prove to be an excellent choice as prefect. *facepalm*

* Seriously, though, I wish Seamus had been made prefect instead. It would be so satisfying for this scene to end with Harry being given detention.

* So Ron lets Harry’s comments about Seamus’ mother pass, but threatens Seamus with detention. So not only does Harry look nasty and defensive, but his best friend looks like he’s using his new-found prefect powers to play favourites. Seriously, it’s like they’re purposefully trying to alienate every boy in that room.

* Unfortunately, though, it doesn’t alienate anyone else, and the other boys line up to agree with Harry, which would just make Seamus feel even more put upon, and less likely to accept what Harry says.

* I’m especially disappointed with Neville. He seems like the sort of character who ought to tell Harry that’s he’s being a dick. Instead he chips in to say how great he and Dumbledore are. Mr. Longbottom, as of this moment you are officially dead to me.

* Harry wonders how many more attacks like Seamus’ he will have to endure before it is all over. Well if your first response to people asking you what happened is to insult them and their family and threaten them with your wand, probably quite a few.

* BTW, does anyone know how prefects are chosen at Hogwarts? Ron and Hermione seem to be the only Gryffindor prefects, but surely there ought to be pairs of sixth- and seventh-year prefects as well? Or is it just that people get appointed in their fifth year, then once they leave school a new pair of fifth-years are appointed, so that there are always two in each house? But then, wouldn’t that mean that students in some years have no chance whatsoever of being made prefects? And isn’t that a little unfair?

 

Comments

[fishinginthemud.livejournal.com]

When you only give people one side of the story, it’s no wonder they end up supporting that side (which, come to think of it, might explain a lot about why many fans seem to follow the Harry-Dumbledore party line…).

Exactly. We readers know Harry's telling the truth, and we don't need him to explain what happened because we were there to see it, so what the hell is Seamus's problem? If he wants to know what happened, he can just pick up GoF and read it like the rest of us.

[nx74defiant.livejournal.com]

"Seamus sounded nervous and eager"

It sounds like Seamus was willing to hear Harry's side. Silly boy wanting to hear both sides before making a decision.

Obviously Seamus is wrong. Why would he need to hear Harry's side - all good people know that Harry is always right! How can anyone ever doubt Harry?
Harry doesn't need to tell his side - you should just know that Harry's side it the right side!

[sunnyskywalker]

I'm from a more recent generation, and despite probably being a bit spoiled due to being the first child (and first grandchild on both sides), my parents made sure I understood that I did not deserve everything I wanted just because I wanted it, and that the laws of physics and finance would not bend to accommodate me. But my parents might just be outliers, because I certainly can't say the same for a lot of my former classmates... like the one whose parents bought him a BMW at 16, and then another one when he wrecked it. That kid probably would never have gotten over not being allowed to watch PG-13 movies until he was 11, which I grumbled about but managed to survive. And Harry reminds me so much of my more spoiled classmates. Maybe the whiplash effect of being horribly neglected (and knowing he deserved better) and then made the center of the universe (not having the capability of distinguishing between "I deserve better" and "I deserve everything") was just too much and broke the kid?

[harpsi-fizz.livejournal.com]

it’s a shame JKR didn’t make more of this function. Maybe Harry could have accepted things he didn’t like hearing from someone he had no reason to be antagonistic towards (i.e., Luna), as a stepping-stone to listening to uncomfortable truths told even by people he didn’t like, such as Draco.
But that's introducing the color grey and we cannot have that. It's either good or evil.

Either Salazar wasn’t as evil as everyone now believes, or Godric wasn’t such an opponent of Dark Magic as the Gryffindors would like to think.
Or back then it was just different styles of magic and history just blew everything out of proportion.
1- I can't imagine what Dark Magic looks like, aside from the three unforgivable curses.
2- Salazar didn't want muggleborns dead; he just didn't think them going to the same school was a good idea.
3- I doubt he went around cackling and talking about how he wanted to be the king of all wizards

Maybe I'm missing a fundamental point about dark magic, but if they were friends, then maybe it really was just a falling out that turned into two different schools of thought by the followers, (eventually evolving into something more sinister) not just a case of "Godrick was born good, Salazar was born Evil". Oh but... I forgot. Gray. Gray is not allowed.

And eeeew, as I was typing out "Godrick was born good" I thought "God is great, God is Good" and... too heavy handed, urgh! ... Ee-heww, and now Harry, a true Gryffindor, Christ figure, the only son of Godrick is coming to mind and... now I'm sad.

But still, I'm voting for the two friends falling out, their followers eventually lead down different paths with word twisting and manipulation for their own agenda.

Hufflepuff’s described as taking “the rest”
This point has always irked me. Especially since if people don't know where to put you when they meet you, they say "Hufflepuff". Come on, JK- develop the idea a little more, would ya?

Or did she intend to address it, but suffered burnout between Books 5 and 6, and ended the series as quickly as possible without bothering about thematic closure?
I'm gonna give her the benefit of the doubt and say that this happened. But then when she recovered and saw all the lose ends, she desperately tried to regain control with those interviews. So it's like JK got drunk on fame and woke up from her hangover to find that shytt went down and now she's doing damage control.

Although actually, looking at her relationship with her first husband… Oooh shytt... *googles* I did not know this...!

I think Hermione would agree with much of what Umbridge is doing and the two seem to have quite similar personalities, so she’d probably connect on a personal level.
That's why I was pissed off that JK tried to change Hermione's middle name to "Jean" when she realized the two shared the same middle name. It was a really nice comparison. I don't care what she says, It'll always be Hermione Jane Granger to me.

And yeah, the way they choose prefects is they take the names of all of the students, rank them by number of times they've interacted with Harry, then divide by plot point. It's Deus Ex Machina's Theorum.

[charlottehywd.livejournal.com]

Nice catch on Godric Gryffindor, which according to Google means "God-Ruler"... Eew, that somehow just makes it worse...

More Ron Psychology

[harpsi-fizz.livejournal.com]

Ron’s not being very restrained with his eating, is he?
I don't know if it's accidental or not, but this is one of those moments that I love, one of the tellings of Ron's home life via his behavior. In this scenario, he's totally a kitten who just got adopted to a house where he's the only cat. He's at a table with food, so his instinct is to eat as fast as he can or his siblings will yoink it. It doesn't help that there are many other people around, encouraging the "get the good stuff fast or you'll have to sate yourself on bread or whatever nobody wants".

Ron is so much more human than Harry! How can Harry not be showing any signs of his "horrendous abuse" for eleven years? Well... I guess he sort of does when he buys all that stuff in his first year. And I guess Ron has to go back home every summer where it gets reinforced. But Harry goes back every summer, too... what the hell?

Note how Ron’s first reaction is to side with Harry.
Not surprising because of the best friends thing (some might argue) but I say it's not surprising considering how Hermione and Ron were treating Harry like a ticking time bomb. Survival!

[snapes-witch.livejournal.com]

The Hat outright says that the Houses are supposed to be united, which doesn’t seem to chime with the portrayal of Slytherin in later books. Is JKR just extraordinarily un-self-reflective, putting in all that stuff about Houses uniting because it sounded like a good principle, but not realising that her actual portrayal of the Houses undercut this theme? Or did she intend to address it, but suffered burnout between Books 5 and 6, and ended the series as quickly as possible without bothering about thematic closure?

Considering that in a post-DH interview JKR says the Slytherin students came back and fought against Voldemort but failed to write it, it's possible she thinks she did show house unity . . .

[charlottehywd.livejournal.com]

Doesn't that seem like uh... a pretty vital detail there? Maybe she ought to have cut the eternal camping trip and put that part in instead!

JKR interviews

[urbanman1984.livejournal.com]

JKR seems to imagine a lot of scenes in Deathly Hallows which in fact did not take place. Possibly she did not write Deathly Hallows and just copied and pasted it from a fanfiction site. But then she never re reads any of the books and can never remember what she actually wrote in them.

[sharaz-jek.livejournal.com]

* Slytherin supported teaching “those / Whose ancestry is purest”, even though the House’s other main value of “ambition” would make it a natural home for those on the fringes of wizarding society – such as muggle-borns – who want to make something of themselves, and most hereditary aristocracies (as the pureblood families seem to be in the WW) would feel more at home in brave and loyal Gryffindor than cunning and ambitious Slytherin. So either the Hat is mistaken to suggest that Slytherin was much of a pureblood supremacist (perhaps it’s getting a bit senile after a thousand years); or ambition only became associated with Slytherin House at a later date; or Slytherin wasn’t initially a pureblood fanatic, but became so at a later date (perhaps one of the muggle-borns tried to betray the school?); or wizarding aristocracy is more like that of ancient Rome, with every individual competing to be better than his peers.

How would the Hat even be able to tell how pure a person's blood is? Does it perform a DNA test on its subjects?

I like your Roman aristocracy idea. I'm now imagining Dumbledore as a sort of Cicero figure: self-important, long-winded (have you ever tried to translate one of his sentences?), and using dubiously-legal methods against his enemies (presumably this would make Voldemort Catiline, though I have no idea who Julius Caesar, Antony, and Octavian would be in this comparison).

[for-diddled.livejournal.com]

"have you ever tried to translate one of his sentences?"

Yes. The longest weighed in at 122 words.

"I'm now imagining Dumbledore as a sort of Cicero figure: self-important, long-winded... and using dubiously-legal methods against his enemies"

He is a bit like Cicero, isn't he? :) Augustus would be a good comparison as well, IMHO: taking power behind the scenes whilst taking care to disguise it behind a veneer of normality. And of course, he's not ambitious, oh my no: he doesn't want all this power, he had to take it, you see, and he'd love to give it up, it's just that the right time to do so never quite arrives...

[sharaz-jek.livejournal.com]

See, now you're giving me thoughts of Dumbledore as played by BRIAN BLESSED and that's just not fair. "IS THERE ANYONE IN HOGWARTS WHO HAS NOT WORSHIPPED HARRY POTTER?!!!!!!!!"

[charlottehywd.livejournal.com]

That is an EXCELLENT idea... ooh, does that make Snape Brutus?

[sharaz-jek.livejournal.com]

For which correspondence - Cicero or Augustus? For Cicero, I suspect Augustus, with his guilty conscience over proscribing M. Tullius, would be an appropriate fit (with Clodius as Fudge, perhaps, and Antony as Voldemort?). Brutus actually cried out something like "Cicero, restore the Republic!" after killing Caesar. Augustus, unfortunately, doesn't readily provide a Snape analogue, though I once considered whether Drusus and Germanicus' dealings with the mutinies among the German legions and Tacitus' attitudes towards both* was resonant of the contrast between Snape and Harry as agents of Dumbledore.

*Drusus was competent and brutal, killing the ringleaders and their accomplices and cowing the mutineers. Germanicus was histrionic, weepy, and only prevailed when his decision to send his wife and son away from the camp shamed his soldiers into repentance. As Tacitus describes it, the soldiers wished to expiate their crimes in the blood of enemies, so Germanicus launched an unprovoked assault on nearby tribes who were sleeping off the effects of a religious festival. Tacitus shows a certain amount of favouritism to Germanicus. He also points out Tiberius' strategy (inherited from Augustus) of sending his sons to deal with things, rather than arriving in person, to preserve the imperial mystique.

[charlottehywd.livejournal.com]

Crap, sorry- for some reason I was thinking of Dumbledore as Julius Caesar, not Cicero. I just think that Snape would make sense that way as far as being wracked by guilt and often seen as being the bad guy when really he wasn't.

pure and cunning

[danajsparks.livejournal.com]

I have a theory that Slytherin's concerns had nothing to do with admitting muggle-born students. I tried posting a longer comment on what Slytherin might have meant by "pure" and "cunning," but it wasn't posting properly. So, I'm going to try just linking to it http://danny-sparks.livejournal.com/5139.html

Re: pure and cunning

[sharaz-jek.livejournal.com]

That's a very nice theory. Unfortunately, given that the Potterverse has surnames* and witch-persecutions in the tenth century, relying on actual historical fact isn't necessarily all that helpful here. Potterverse history is a badly-thought out AU based on JKR's ignorance, alas.

*It's possible they were epithets based on Helga's asthma and Salazar's habit of writhing around on the floor, but unless Rowena had a pet raven that she trained to attack people like some kind of Batman villain I have no idea where her name came from, and Gryffindor sounds to me like a description of an heraldic device of a golden griffon, which isn't the case (and I'm not sure heraldry even existed back then in our world).

Re: pure and cunning

[danajsparks.livejournal.com]

I understand what you're saying. However, I think it's worth considering whether it's the author who is so ignorant of real history or if it's the characters, the witches and wizards of Britain, who are ignorant.

Most real-life history is quite subjective, with the winners writing the history. And there is often an agenda behind the history we are taught, especially in high school. The sheer absurdity of some of the "history" transmitted in the wizarding world makes me wonder if, to some extent, Rowling is doing a parody of governments who rewrite history for their own agenda.

Re: pure and cunning

[sharaz-jek.livejournal.com]

Good point. And someone here (or maybe it was Red Hen, I can't remember) pointed out that Bathilda's textbook presents the anachronistic persecutions as ineffectual, as a joke (with the deaths of innocent Muggles neatly brushed under the carpet). Dumbledore's attempt to reduce anti-Muggle feeling by pretending they were never a real threat, perhaps? (Compare also Hagrid's presumably Dumbledore-approved belief that seclusion happened to avoid the great responsibility that comes with great power).

But if we assume that Muggle hostility in the tenth century was exaggerated by later historians for whatever agenda, we're left with far less reason for Hogwarts to be a remotely situated heavily-defended castle and for Slytherin's paranoia about Muggle-born students. Reducing Slytherin's motivation for installing the basilisk to "he was just evil" is disappointing but ultimately has the same effect, but without some perceived external threat, Hogwarts remains unexplained. Unless you're suggesting that there was some other threat back then (possibly goblin-related), and as Muggles became the wizarding world's bogeyman present-day attitudes were projected onto the past?

Re: pure and cunning

[danajsparks.livejournal.com]

I recently read a great essay (http://wemyss.livejournal.com/52577.html) by wemyss about the names and origins of the founders. The comments are also very interesting.

Re: pure and cunning

[jodel-from-aol.livejournal.com]

Not formal Heraldry at any rate. Military devices certainly existed. MAinly so you could tell which side was which on a battlefield.

IIRC, formal Heraldry which organized things and kept records of what device belonged to what family on a more permanent basis than the current battle was established at different times in different countries. In Britain I think it came in during the reign of the Lancastrians, and grandfathered in the devices which were known to have been in use in the battle of Argincourt.

Re: pure and cunning

[for-diddled.livejournal.com]

It was a bit earlier than this, actually: the first heraldic device is usually considered to be that of Geoffrey Plantagenet, Count of Anjou (1113 to 1151), who was granted the right to use a badge of golden lions on a blue background by his father-in-law, Henry I of England. Prior to that, as you say, things were a bit more ad hoc: most noblemen had their own devices, although these were a matter of personal preference and weren't standardised or regulated like later heraldry was. (Although some symbols were associated with particular ranks/families: the kings of Wessex, for example, generally used a dragon banner.) In Godric's case, the Gryffin might have been a personal symbol he adopted, and which was used as an epithet to distinguish him from the other Godrics of the time, although that still leaves open the question of why he was given an epithet in French.

[clockworkshadow.livejournal.com]

Goodness I'm so glad I've joined this place, I've learned so much reading the comments! [and I'm only this many posts in!]

Also- you've made excellent points here. :)

[danajsparks.livejournal.com]

This place is totally addictive. :)